Earth jurisprudence: standing up for the planet

... The plaintiffs alleged that Export-Import Bank of the United States and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation illegally provided more than $32 billion in financing and insurance to fossil fuel projects over 10 years without assessing whether the projects contributed to global warming or impacted the US environment, as they were required to do under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ... Under the settlement agreed today, the Export-Import Bank will begin taking carbon dioxide emissions into account in evaluating fossil fuel projects and create an organisation-wide carbon policy. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation will establish a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with projects by 20 per cent over the next ten years. Both agencies will commit to increasing financing for renewable energy ...

One wonders how the Australian Government’s decision to inject significant funds into "clean" coal technology would play out in the United States, particularly considering our National Strategy of Ecologically Sustainable Development?

Turning to New South Wales legislation, The Hon. Justice Preston has outlined some of the anomolies in relation to climate change litigation (PDF 308KB) and we have seen the results of development decision making being concentrated in the hands of the NSW Minister. And don’t forget the findings of the leaked Action for Air 2009 report or the allegations raised about the state of environmental reporting and policing.

What do the results of the recent National Land and Water Resources Audit or our mammal extinction rates or the parlous state of the Murray Darling Basin say about the adequacy of environmental regulation in this country? What really is the philosophy driving our legislative framework?

What hope is there of any government reigning in wasteful and polluting habits when it has lots of enquiries and reviews but won’t ban plastic bags, make corporations responsible for their packaging and for recycling their used products, or ban dangerous practices like using the chemicals that now affect the Great Barrier Reef?

Donella Meadows from the Sustainability Institute suggested years ago that designing a system for intrinsic responsibility could mean, for example, requiring all towns or companies that emit wastewater into a stream to place their intake pipe downstream from their outflow pipe. That's exactly the kind of commonsense thinking and practical action we need now.

Before law makers are in a position to consider the principles of ecologically sustainable development they must first understand how ecosystems and carbon cycles work and acknowledge that the environment does not recognise political or state boundaries and is not subject to political will or market forces. Only then can they formulate and implement a philosophy for legislation in this country that focuses on sustainability and responsibility, and prevents, rather than encourages and rewards, environmental imperialism.

Remember, the countdown hasn’t long started and we’re already half way towards that 2C increase ...